This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our June 21, 2025 UPC Roundup. The first week after the previous roundup was slow because of a UPC-internal event we mention further below, which is why we exceptionally extended the roundup period.
1. CoA
1.1 CoA rejects cross-appeal; bid for broader U.S. attorney access (Network Systems Technologies v. Qualcomm)
The Court of Appeal (CoA) rejected appeals by Network Systems Technologies (NST) and Qualcomm over access to confidential information (PDF). NST had sought to allow a second U.S.-based attorney access to sensitive materials, citing technical expertise and long-term involvement. However, the court upheld the Munich Local Division (LD) decision permitting access to only one U.S. attorney. The panel ruled that expanding access was unnecessary, emphasizing that the right to a fair trial must be balanced against Qualcomm’s interest in protecting confidential data. The court noted that NST’s technical expert and UPC representatives already had sufficient access, and additional attorney access posed an undue risk. Qualcomm’s cross-appeal to revoke access was also denied.
1.2 Sumi’s appeal over filing fee timing falls short (Sumi Agro v. Syngenta)
The CoA dismissed Sumi’s appeal seeking to lift provisional measures previously granted to Syngenta (PDF). Sumi had argued that Syngenta failed to initiate proceedings on the merits within the 31-day deadline set by the Munich LD, pointing to a delay in receiving the court fee. However, the CoA clarified that court fees are considered timely under Article 70(2) UPCA and Rule 371.1 RoP if the party orders the payment at the time of filing, even if the funds reach the court’s account later. It emphasized that the timing of fee payment should not depend on uncontrollable banking delays.
1.3 Revocation appeals and counterclaims require separate fees (Advanced Bionics v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte)
The CoA clarified that separate court fees must be paid when appealing decisions in both revocation actions and counterclaims for revocation. Although these actions may be addressed together in a single ruling by the Court of First Instance, the court emphasized that they are legally distinct proceedings under Article 32(1) of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). As such, each requires its own appeal fee. The decision reinforces the procedural principle that combining decisions in one document does not merge the underlying legal actions for the purposes of court fees or appeal rights.
1.4 Suspension of security order in favor of insolvent defendants hinges on law firm’s proper mandate to bring appeal and application for suspension (Easee v. Visibly)
(paragraph provided by Florian Mueller)
The CoA found that an appeal by Easee and its managing director met the high bar for suspensive effect, but needed to clarify a formal question (PDF) The easy (no pun intended) part of this was to find that the lower court had clearly erred when ordering security over a revocation counterclaim (a question the CoA clarified only after the appealed order came down; Emboline v. AorticLab (June 20, 2025 ip fray article)). The managing director, whose name is redacted, therefore prevails on the application for sure. Visibly tried to distinguish the pattern in this case from Emboline v. AorticLab, but the CoA gave that argument short shrift.
What was not so easy to decide is whether the two Easee companies prevail on the same basis, given that they entered into a bankruptcy proceeding along the way and plaintiff-appellee Visibly argues that the Taylor Wessing firm was not properly authorized to bring the appeal and the concomitant application for suspensive effect. Visibly says only the “curator” (as the CoA order calls the bankruptcy administrator) would have had the right to authorize the appeal and the application. The CoA granted only a provisional suspension (which is in effect until it decides on the application) and gave Easee five days to explain whether the appeal and the application were properly brought by Taylor Wessing. If so, then the Easee companies will also win a suspension.
2. Settlement: Arkyne Technologies v. Plant-e Knowledge B.V
The CoA first panel confirmed a confidential settlement agreement reached by the parties. The case originated with a ruling from the Hague LD, which found Arkyne liable for patent infringement and rejected its counterclaim for revocation. Arkyne had appealed both decisions. Before the appeal process reached the end of the written stage, both parties notified the court that they had resolved the matter amicably and requested confirmation of the settlement along with confidentiality for its full contents. Additionally, Arkyne requested a refund of court fees. As the settlement occurred prior to the conclusion of the written procedure, the court approved a 60% reimbursement—totaling €8,820 across both appeals.
3. Security for costs
3.1 Munich LD: defendant not only doesn’t have to give, but is even entitled to, security related to revocation counterclaim (Headwater Research LLC v. Motorola Mobility, Flextronics)
The Munich LD ruled that Headwater must provide €300,000 in security for legal costs in its ongoing patent infringement case against Motorola and Flextronics. The court found Headwater’s financial situation raised legitimate concerns over its ability to reimburse the defendants should it lose the case. The court rejected Headwater’s own request that the defendants be required to post security, ruling that such protections apply only to defendants under Article 69(4) UPCA. Meanwhile, it sided with the defendants, who argued that Headwater lacked operational infrastructure, had a weak credit rating, and faced substantial legal exposure from other lawsuits—especially in the U.S. The court concluded these factors cast serious doubt on Headwater’s financial capacity. Accordingly, Headwater must provide €200,000 to Motorola and €100,000 to Flextronics within six weeks, either through deposit to the UPC or a bank guarantee. The court affirmed that defendants may seek security not only for infringement claims but also for costs stemming from their counterclaims for revocation, as these are considered necessary parts of their legal defense.
3.2 Withdrawal of application for provisional measures results in full liability for costs (Ballinno B.V. v. Kinexon)
The CoA dismissed an appeal by Ballinno after the company withdrew its request for provisional measures—such as injunctions, seizure of goods, and penalties—during the appellate proceedings. The Court ruled that the withdrawal rendered the action moot and therefore no longer required adjudication under Rule 360 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The court affirmed that the applicant had to be treated as the unsuccessful party at both trial and appeal levels, without the need to evaluate the case’s substantive merits. Ballinno was ordered to bear all legal costs and expenses incurred by respondents Kinexon and UEFA. The value of the dispute for appeal purposes was set at €100,000.
4. Defendant Renault wins switch to English as language of proceedings in Avago case
The Munich LD approved a request by Renault to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Avago Technologies. The court noted that procedural fairness and the position of the defendants carry significant weight, especially when claimants already benefit from choosing the forum, language, and timing of litigation.
5. CoA upholds €84K cost award (Tiroler Rohre v. SSAB Swedish)
The CoA rejected an appeal by Tiroler Rohre, upholding the Munich LD’s order that it reimburse SSAB €84,033.76 in legal costs following a withdrawn request for provisional measures. The CoA found that rules 150–157 of RoP permit a separate cost determination even after a case is withdrawn and confirmed that such proceedings must follow the general cost assessment framework. The appeal was dismissed in full, and Tiroler Rohre must bear its own costs for the appeal.
6. New cases
6.1 Infringement (main) proceedings
- Headwater Research v. Samsung (Dusseldorf LD)
- Innovative Sonic v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunication (Munich LD)
- Innovative Sonic v. Xiaomi Technology (Munich LD)
- DivX LLC v. Netflix Services (Munich LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- Papst Licensing v. Ecovacs (Munich LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- Papst Licensing v. Roborock (Munich LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- MediaTek v. Huawei Technologies (Munich LD)
6.2 Preliminary injunction proceedings
- Occlutech v. Lepu Medical Technology (Hamburg LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- InterDigital v. Disney Platform Distribution (Mannheim LD)
- Imusyn GmbH v. BAG Diagnostics (Dusseldorf LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- Hewlett-Packard Development v. Andreas Rentmeister (Dusseldorf LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
7. Recent and upcoming hearings
7.1 Recent hearings
- Tuesday, July 01, 2025:
- Heraeus Electronics & Heraeus Precious v. Vibrantz (Munich LD)
- Aesculap AG v. Shanghai International Holding Corporation (Dusseldorf LD)
- Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v. Dolby International AB (CoA)
- Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v. Sun Patent Trust (CoA)
- Monday, June 30, 2025:
- Chint New Energy Technology v. JingAo Solar (CoA; Rule 220.2 RoP appeal)
7.2 Upcoming hearings
- Tuesday, July 08, 2025:
- City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v. Maars Holding (The Hague LD)
- Wednesday, July 09, 2025:
- Motorola Mobility LLC v. ASUSTek Computer Inc (Munich LD)
- Thursday, July 10, 2025:
- Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (CoA)
- Friday, July 11, 2025:
- expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd (CoA)
- BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH. v. Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmvH (CD Munich)
8. Around the court
- The Unified Patent Court (UPC) held a major training session in Lisbon from June 24–25, 2025 (UPC news item), gathering more than 180 legally and technically qualified judges, as well as court clerks, ahead of the launch of its new Case Management System (CMS) in July. Organized in collaboration with Portugal’s Directorate-General of Justice Administration and the PolĂcia Judiciária, the two-day event offered practical demonstrations of the CMS’s key functions, aiming to ensure smooth adoption across the Court’s divisions. The agenda also included a presentation on the UPC’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) and featured team-building exercises to foster internal collaboration.
- The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has announced that the first phase of its new Case Management System (CMS) will go live on Tuesday, July 8, 2025 (UPC news item). In preparation, the current CMS entered a temporary freeze from Thursday, July 3 at 18:00 until the launch date. During this period, the system will be inaccessible, and users are encouraged to complete any urgent actions in advance. From July 8 onward, all opt-out filings and representative registrations must be submitted through the new CMS. A contact form is available on the UPC website with the court recommends reviewing all published support materials before submitting queries. Detailed login instructions for the new CMS will be provided on the launch day.
- The UPC has announced that Mr. Lorenzo Parrini of Italy, a newly appointed technically qualified judge specializing in physics and mechanical engineering, will take his oath of office on Friday, July 4, 2025 (UPC news item). The ceremony will be held online, in accordance with Article 6 of the UPC Statute, which mandates that all judges take an oath in open court before assuming their duties. Mr. Parrini’s appointment was previously announced on May 22, 2025.